middle eastern countries for oil. higher prices at the pumps and there has been no accountability to the administration for their policies that have led to this destruction of our economic well-being and economic security as it relates to american energy and as it relates to jobs in the gulf of mexico. now if you want to get down to the details of this amendment, one of the things we have said for a long time is, a lot of these companies, big employers that have been out there for a long time exploring safely for american energy, they want to explore for american energy and go back to work but haven't been allowed to because of administration policies. but what is more absurd is, while the administration has had this permitorium where they won't let people go back to work, they have allowed the

clock to continue ticking on the leases. you have a 10-year period of time. if the administration is saying, you can't properly develop your lease, that would be one thing if they said we are going to stop the clock where we as a administration go forward. all of our experts have said it has nothing to do with safety and hurting not only american energy production but american jobs. but the administration has said they will let the clock run. if you are playing a bnl game and the referee is holding the clock and you say i want to play by the rules and the referee is holding the ball and the clock continues to run and that is not fair. and the administration -- and the administration continues to do this. the house passed legislation, putting the gulf of mexico back to work act this legislation we passed here in the house with a

bipartisan vote, sent to the senate, they haven't taken action in the senate but what this did, amongst other things, is address that problem. instead of this administration is going to tell responsible companies who are trying to go back to work, who are trying to do the right thing if the administration is going to tell them they're not allowed to play by their own rules, then the clock stops while the administration denies them the ability to be permitted. and so the legislation that we passed addressed this but the senate, for whatever reason, refuses to take it up, gep, costing our country thousands of good, high-paying jobs, and hurting america's energy security, making us more dependent on middle eastern oil. what we're saying with this amendment is, if the administration wants to continue going forward with a radical policy which a majority of the president's own hand-picked scientists in his report right after the explosion of the horizon said is irresponsible to do, would

reduce safety by denying permits, having this moratorium and permit toirm, then there -- ter my toirm then there has -- per my toirm then there has to be accountability for their actions. we are looking at the number of leases that expire at the end of this year, 350 leases expire, not through the fault of companies trying to explore for american energy but pause the administration won't let them play by the rules. if they're going to be irresponsible with their policies, there has to be a price to pay. there has to be accountability that the american people say, you're not going to use taxpayer money to deny american jobs to deny american energy, and make our country more dependent on middle eastern oil and make our country have to continue to have to pay this high price at the pump. it's their policies that have done it. if it's clear and everybody understands that, people in the gulf of mexico recognize that

but there has been no accountability by this congress so that's what this legislation is intended to do, i urge adoption. the chair: the gentleman's time has expired. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. simpson: i rise in opposition to the amendment, reluctantly. i understand what the gentleman is saying. i agree what -- with what he's saying. there's a concern that we are not allowing these oil companies to go out after the permits an trying to send a message to the secretary. i understand that. i don't have a problem with sending a message. but the -- the problem is, and this is a little bit of inside baseball, i guess, to talk about it this way. under the rules we have, if you -- you can reduce an account by a certain amount and put that money in the budget reserve account which then reduces the allocation that the committee

has to spend. it takes the $420,000, i think it is, out of the office of the secretary and reduces our allocation by that much. as members have heard that have listened to this debate, there are both republicans an democrats that are concerned about some of the funding allocations in this bill of the various accounts. people want to put more money into the land and water conservation fund, people want to put more money, as the last amendment did, into the invasive species program, taking care of invasive species. there are members on both sides of the aisle that believe that various accounts are funded at too low a level system of to take this money and put it into the budget reserve account and take it out of the interior appropriations bills means money that's not available under -- that could go into another account. this bill comes to the floor under the budget resolution passed by the house under the 302-a and 302-b cap that was

given to this committee. it's a tough allocation. but we've made those tough decisions and i don't like to see money to send a message to the secretary, money taken out of his account and put into the budget reserve account when there are other accounts within the appropriation that could be used to fund. if you want to put it in the budget reserve account, i don't have a problem with the message you're trying to stand. i appreciate what the gentleman is trying to do but reluctantly have to oppose the amendment. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i rise to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman is recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: i agree with the chairman of the committee that this amendment should be opposed. but i would also mention that, i don't know how fast the administration could issue drilling permits in the gulf of mexico that would be fast enough. it's as though deepwater

horizon never happened. it did happen, people died. the ecology of the gulf area was severely and adversely affected. the economy was devastated. and we did a complete investigation and found that it was largely because minerals management service was not doing its job that they were issuing permit taos quickly -- permits too quickly without adequate review. sometimes they were letting permit forms be filled out by the oil companies thems, sometimes they'd already made arrangements to go to work for the oil companies. but for whatever reason, the fact is that they weren't doing their job. they were letting down the american public, they were letting down the workers on the drilling rigs.

and they certainly contributed to the spoiling of the environment, ecology of the gulf. so this congress, both sides having been severely critical of the minerals management service reorganized it and instructed it to be very careful, at least much more careful than they had been in the past in terms of issuing drilling permits. that's what they're doing. now, there have been any number of trilling permits issued, they're being issue sod fast we don't have an exact number right now but we know a lot have been issued. again, i doubt that whatever the number was that it would be enough for members that represent areas in the gulf that -- that benefit from more drilling activity. the american public, this is a

democracy, the majority of the american public, whatever state they're in, want the secretary of the interior to have a process that reflects integrity that reflects caution, that puts the safety of workers and the protection of the environment first. the secretary is doing his job. we support the job he's doing. we know he's issuing a lot of permits and we know that -- and agree with the chairman that this amendment should be defeated. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. for what purpose does -- >> i'd like to make a motion. if i could make a unanimous consent motion to strike lines three and four of this amendment, i would ask unanimous consent to do that. mr. dicks: we object to that

until we know what it is he's trying to do. the chair: would the gentleman submit his modification to the desk. mr. scalise: i'd be happy to, madam chair. the chair: the clerk will report the modification. the clerk: modification of amendment offered by mr. scalise of louisiana. strike the second instruction. the chair: without objection, the amendment is modified. is there any further debate on the amendment? for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise?

mr. moran: madam chair, i rise to strike the last word since it's now a different amendment. the chair: the gentleman's recognized for five minutes. mr. moran: madam chairwoman, this is a distinction without a difference. the money still goes away. the argument that was made by the chairman of the committee still stands. as far as i can see. so even though the amendment be worded a little differently, the reality is that the money is lost. and we don't see that this would be a constructive amendment anyway so we would oppose it. >> would the gentleman yield? mr. moran: i yield to the gentleman. mr. scalise: what the amendment as it's revised would do would reduce the $420,000, it would

not go to the spend regular ducks account, it would stay within the department, that addresses one of the concerns the chairman had. there has to be accountability, for those people who played by the rules who are being penalized today, this is a way to send a message and a message attached to a spending reduction in the secretary's department that he can't just deny people the ability to go back to work who are playing by the rules. i yield back to the gentleman. mr. moran: i reclaim my time. i don't know, business about playing by the rules and punishing people who don't, it seems to me that the interior department is trying to play by the rules of the congress -- that the congress instructed it to play by but notwithstanding that, when you remove $420,000

from the bill, i think you lose it. i don't think that this makes a difference. you say -- what you're saying is that you're not going to put the $420,000 into this reduction account. what's the term of it? this spend regular ducks account. -- spending reduction account. that does away with the money. now you're taking it out of the bill, letting it fly away to who knows where, but the reality is it no longer exists. it's coming out of the bill. we don't think that's a good ysmed we agree with the chairman that this amendment should be defeated. i yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the amendment as modified offered by the gentleman from louisiana. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no.

in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. mr. scalise: madam chair. the chair: the gentleman is recognized. mr. scalise: i ask for the yeas and nays. the chair: does the gentleman ask for a recorded vote. mr. scalise: yes, ma'am. the chair: pursuant to clause 6 of rule 18, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from louisiana will be postponed. for what purpose does the gentlewoman from texas rise? ms. jackson lee: i have an amendment at the desk. the chair: the clerk will report the amendment. the clerk: amendment offered by ms. jackson lee of texas. page 32, line 12, after the dollar amount, insert decreased by $5,500,000. page 65, line 19, after the dollar amount, insert increased

by $5 million. the chair: the gentlewoman from texas is recognized for five minutes. ms. jackson lee: i thank you, madam chairwoman. we are in some tough times, but i believe it's important to have a structure in this government that provides oversight over the environment of this country. and however on quarrel with regulations that may seem a little steep, the work of the environmental protection agency is important. and as we stand here today, this legislation cuts the budget of the environmental protection agency by 18%, in addition to 16% in funding for f.y. 2011, 34%. this is unacceptable in order to protect the environment without harming industry, we must reach a compromise without slashing

the e.p.a. budget. these cuts limit the e.p.a.'s ability to ensure that all americans have access to drinking water that does not contain toxins that expose americans to typhoid and organ damage. the assault on public health does not stop with the quality of our drinking water. this bill takes steps. a rider is attached that would prevent the e.p.a. from implementing a regulation that was implemented to protect the public from dangerous air pollution and prevent up to 34,000 premature deaths and 400,000 cases of asthma. i have never seen an e.p.a. director as hard as lisa jackson, although we have had outstanding administrators. she has worked with members across the aisle. but these cuts reduce funding for programs that keep our constituents safe and i cannot

speak for my colleagues on the other side of the aisle but i can't afford to have these cuts impact the people of houston. houston has the poorest air quality in the nation. it is important that we find a way to increase the funding for the e.p.a. and as this bill makes its way through the floor, i will continue to work to do so and i start first with this effort and i ask my colleagues to support this amendment and i reserve the balance of my time. the chair: the gentlewoman cannot reserve. ms. jackson lee: i do not yield back. how much time do i have, please? the chair: 2 1/2 minutes. ms. jackson lee: i will continue and i will not at this time yield back my time. let me explain to you about the old acres council.

this is an african american community. they conducted a study to ack assess the community's health risk. a local landfill could be the cause of the problems. enormous cancer in that area. it was awarded a $20,000 grant from the e.p.a. and it is commonly known as the superfund which obviously it was in some years past to conduct tests to conduct assess and aquality the risks to human health. the goal of this program was to investigate whether there were hazardous runoff. this community needed those resources. the council used the grant funds to hire a consultant to take air and water samples. the analysis revealed high

concentrations of high toxin substances. they observed substances seep pping. this will collected into pools of water. they became engeorged and increased -- increasing exposures of residents to hazardous substances. it educated a poor community of seniors and others about the conditions of their neighborhood. this funding that takes away from e.p.a. and takes away from the clean water state revolving fund and impacts communities like that of the acres home community in the 18th congressional district. my friends, we cannot gamble with the safety of the american pum public. the quality of the environment for future generations, we need to restore this funding and i

have made this effort to do so. i will continue to do so. since the debt limit was put in place, we have always paid america's bills. we fight today to raise the debt ceiling but at the same time we are cutting at america's safety and environmental protection. i ask my colleagues to support this amendment because it is the right thing to do. with that, i yield back. the chair: the gentlewoman's time has expired. the gentleman from idaho is recognized. mr. simpson: same debate over again. we are taking money from the office of secretary which is down some $33 million from the budget request of this year than we have taken $20 million out of that already to put in the water and land conservation fund.

this would take more money out of the office of secretary of the. it seems like someone has an amendment to fund a program that they feel is important, the savings account you get it from is the office of the secretary not only in this bill but other bills. we take it out of administration. it's that's the easiest thing to do. the office of secretary has taken a pretty good hit in this bill both during the markup and here on debate on the floor. i'm afraid i have to oppose this amendment because it hits an account that is already substantially lower than what was requested. ms. jackson lee: i didn't thank you and the ranking member for a very tough task and my overall intent was the need for increasing the funding in the e.p.a.

as we make our way through this process, does the gentleman see in the consultation with the other body any opportunity to restore any of these funds to the e.p.a.? mr. simpson: i would have to say i don't know. i don't know what the senate is doing, what their allocation is going to be, they have not passed the budget, so they have no 302-b to work with. the e.p.a. has taken the largest hit within this budget. a lot of that was due to the fact they had the largest increases in the last couple of years. certainly, we will be looking at all of these accounts when we go into conference with the body cross the rotunda to come to a compromise. ms. jackson lee: i will continue to work on this issue. and i know we will take a vote on this. and i will come back again on the floor, because i think this is a very important issue and i

thank the gentleman for yielding to allow me to express that the e.p.a. be funded more fully than it has been. mr. simpson: i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. the question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from texas. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair, the noes have it. the amendment is not agreed to. the clerk: page 33, line 18, assistance to territories, $82,558,000. compact of free association, $3,307,00. administrative provisions, the secretary may transfer discretionary funds provided

under public law 108-188 and public 104-134. officer of the solicitor, salaries and expenses, $64 million. the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from arizona rise? mr. gosar: i have an amendment at the table. the clerk: amendment offered offered by mr. gosar of arizona. page 26, line, ininsert decrease $3 million, page 88, line 9, after the dollar amount insert increase $4 mill thon 367,000. the chair: the gentleman from arizona is rkniesed. mr. gosar: i know firsthand the profound value of oral health particularly for children. oral health care is shown to be a critical aspect of

preventative care. this is true in the native american community which i'm proud to serve which has 21 federally recognized tribes. my amendment will transfer $4,367,000 in from the office to the indian health service. it recommends $4 million than the president's request for dental health and while the bill does not name dental health specifically i would like to make it clear that this reallocation of funds is intnded to fund dental health programs within i.h.s. the united states government took long ago a number of obligations to our native people and health care was among them. in particular, i colt state that the indian tribes have suffered in the area of oral health. believe it or not, the incidents

of early childhood carriers occurs within the tribe population at 300% the national rate. this is unacceptable and someone who has practiced den ties try. this will have dire consequences. dekay is hire in these children. pre-school native children suffer. in many native communities between 25% and 50% of pre-school children have extensive tooth decay require restoration. we have an obligation to improve this sad state of affairs. i encourage my colleagues to support my amendment for the sake of native children who we have an olings. and i yield back.

the speaker pro tempore: the chair: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: strike the last word. you are going to hear from the than tire dental caucus. we are the two dentists that are in congress so it might not surprise you that i support the gentleman's amendment. i appreciate his sincere efforts to address the obligations both trust obligations and treaty obligations and moral obligations that we have with our indian brothers and sisters. one of the things i'm proudest of in this bill was to be able to carry on the work that had been done by chairman dicks when he was chairman of the committee and now that i'm chairman of the committee to meet those trust olingses that we have with our indian brothers and sisters across this country. one of the areas in this bill,

one of the two areas that got increased funding was indian health services because we have the obligation to meet these services. this is one of the most prevalent disease in the united states and 300% more likely in native americans than it is in the normal population. that is unacceptable and we have to do something and meet the contract obligations. there is a saying that's been said around the country, if you live in indian country, you need to get sick before june because the contract support costs run out about that time. one thing we have made a concerted effort, support the contract support costs for native americans. we are at 93 or 94%. the contract support in the

b.i.a. that does the police work and those types of things are fully funded. we are going to continue to work to meet those obligations that i think we as americans have and i appreciate the amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona and i truly appreciate his support for our indian brothers and sisters and i yield back. the chair: the gentleman yields back the balance of his time. for what purpose does the gentleman from virginia rise? mr. moran: i move to strike the last word. the chair: the gentleman from virginia is recognized. mr. moran: as i have said privately and publicly to the chairman of the appropriations subcommittee, i congratulate him for taking the initiative and showing the commitment in the indian health service by increasing it by $369 million this year and dental health specifically is up by $13.8

million. that's above the existing level this year and this year is above last year. granted, the need is very substantial. and so i have been very supportive. the problem is that with this amendment that adds another $4.3 million for the expressed purpose of increasing dental health further, it's the offset. . the cut is to the solicitor of the department that serves as the chief legal officer and it's the solicitor that provides legal services to native americans on behalf of the department. so you're taking the chief

legal officer for the native americans of this country and making a substantial cut to the resources available for that position. it's kind of robbing peter to pay paul. there are very substantial and serious legal issues that need to be dealt with on behalf of indians throughout the country and there are very difficult health issues that certainly need to be addressed. i did not rise in opposition to the amendment but i do think that taking the money from the solicitor is an unfortunate place to be finding a cut of $4.3 million. but i'll yield back my time. the chair: the gentleman yields back. the question is on the

amendment offered by the gentleman from arizona. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. in the opinion of the chair the ayes have it. the amendment is agreed to. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? the chair: i ask -- mr. simpson: i ask that the remainder of the bill be considered as read, printed in the record and open to amendment at any point. the chair: is there objection? without objection, so ordered. for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. simpson: i move that the committee do now rise. the chair: the question is on the motion that the committee rise.

those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. the motion is adopted. accordingly, the committee rises. the speaker pro tempore: madam chair. the chair: mr. speaker, the committee of the whole house on the state of the union, having had under consideration h.r. 2584, directs me to report that it has come to no resolution thereon. the speaker pro tempore: the chair of the committee of the whole house on the state of the union reports that the committee has had under consideration h.r. 2584 and has come to no resolution thereon. >> mr. speaker.

the speaker pro tempore: for what purpose does the gentleman from idaho rise? mr. impson: i move that the -- mr. simpson: i move that the house do now adjourn. the chair: the -- the speaker pro tempore: the question son the motion to adjourn. those in favor say aye. those opposed, no. the ayes have it. >> earlier today, members of

the rules committee took up package.oehner's debt >> leaders continue working today on their respective plans for debt and deficit reduction. this afternoon the cbo reported the plan offered by boehner would not cut the deficit as much as our originally thought. leaders say their proposal will not come to the floor until at least thursday. in a few monarchs -- in a few moments, speaker boehner. then senate leaders harry reid and mitch mcconnell.

later come floor debate on the senate democratic plan. >> visit charleston this week on confederate charleston author on the secession from the union. from american history tv kamal the american revolution. throughout the weekend, more about the literary life, plantation life, and a catastrophic 1886 earthquake. charleston, south carolina, this weekend on c-span2 and c- span3. >> now house speaker john boehner. he spoke with reporters for 10

minutes after a leadership committee meeting. this is before the cbo released information that the plan would not reduce the deficit as much as originally planned. >> we have the bill that is a reasonable approach, negotiated with the senate leadership, that is common sense. there is more cuts in spending then you have an increase in the debt limit. it provides for the best efforts to get a balanced budget amendment. it is reasonable, responsible, it can pass the house and senate, and i hope the president will consider signing it into law. >> the president spent time last night on tv, and there were a

lot of words there, what they did not say was what the president is for. there was no evidence that he has a plan. he does not like our plan, but he has not put a plan for debt. there were a lot of words and a lot of focus on the politics. he spent time spoke the about millionaires, billionaires', things that have nothing to do with the debate. at this point, we have got three options. one is the do nothing and bring on possible default, which i am not for, nor is the speaker, or anybody standing up here. another is to go with harry reid's plan, a blank check, something that we do not believe is the most -- believe as most americans do should happen.

third, we have other options on the table, that is consistent with our commitment to say we are going to change the system, stop spending money we do not have, and focus on getting people back to work in this country, doing something about unemployment. >> last night, it was a political speech. you watched the leadership sitdown trying to get to a bipartisan agreement. difficult to have any agreement with someone if you're buying a house and you make an offer and no one ever tells you what they want. what happened is the president lost perspective because he could not make an agreement. as the founding fathers sat down, the house and the senate need to get together and make a

decision. we put together a bill that had provisions that the house republicans were looking for, a bill that has provisions that harry reid and mcconnell were looking for. this is what the people have been asking for. this is the opportunity to move this country forward. we look forward to moving this bill to the floor of the house, to the senate, and on to the president's desk. the president did not say he would veto it. >> speech last night was historic. i cannot recall the last time a president of the united states used a nationally televised address not to tell the american people what he was 4, but to tell the american people what he was against. seven days out from his august 2 deadline, there is still no plan to deal with the debt crisis

from the president. what we heard from the president was a call for balance, that there is a tale of two balances. his idea of balance is republicans, i want you to raise taxes on small businesses and american families to pay for my spending spree. idea, mr.ublicans' president, we will raise the debt ceiling, but only if you agree to cut up the credit cards. nothing has changed in this debate. i found it interesting that the president would quote thomas jefferson, collude to roll reagan, both of whom supported a balanced budget amendment to the constitution, and the president of the united states last night was silent on the issue that could solve this problem once and for all. i again, mr. president, we heard

of before, we know you want to get this done before this next election, but it is not the next election, it is about the next generation. >> excited the house is going to be voting on the balanced budget amendment on thursday, the first time we have voted on the amendment since 1997, and one of the polls that was the last week showed 74 percent of americans support this amendment. what was most impressive was that 2/3 democrats support a balanced budget amendment. there is broad support for moving forward on this amendment, and we will be taking action this week, and when thomas jefferson, after they finished the constitution, said if i could make one change, it would be limit the federal government's ability to borrow money. i'm excited that we can after 200 years make thomas jefferson

's dream a reality. [unintelligible] >> a number of conservatives have a problem with that plan. how the you get them on board for this? we have taken from the cut, cap, and balance framework and stayed with it. last three years discretionary grew at 84%. in this bill you have a vote for a balanced budget for a set time in the future. we will also have won this week. we will not give up that fight. we have current cuts going forward. it is not the bill house republicans would write if we could write one thing only. this is a bipartisan bill that we sat down with harry reid and

harry reid made agreement to it. that is what the american people ask for and why we are moving forward. at the end of the day the government will spend less. there will be caps on provisions. and there will be a vote to put the balanced budget to the states. [unintelligible] there is a lot of big recipes out there that they do not want to share with you because it is a secret weapon. [unintelligible] >> the package of discretionary cuts is a real. next year's spending will lower than this year's spending. i think that is a big step of the right direction, and we put real caps in place.

it is going to be the less than it was last year. >> some were saying last night that the cuts would allow for more spending than the ryan budget. is that correct? >> i would much rather have the house republican budget, but this bill was a product of a bipartisan discussion and a bipartisan negotiation. that is why it is not exactly everything we would want it to be. [unintelligible] >> are you confident this is going to pass? [unintelligible] >> this was negotiated in a bipartisan manner between both houses of congress. i think we will have work to do to get it passed, but i think we can do it. >> the markets are down this morning.

even if the plan does not reach $1 trillion, are you worried -- >> i do believe this plan is enough. when the joint committee gets together, they are required to find cuts at least $1.80 trillion. the first step in this project is to make sure we pass this in the house and i would ask all my colleagues, to look at this common-sense plan, a common- sense way forward that will avoid default and put america's fiscal house back in order. >> i did get a haircut. >> senate leaders spoke with

reporters on the negotiations. we will hear first from majority leader harry reid he said that boehner's plan will not be approved by the senate. each briefing is about 10 minutes. >> democrats made clear we are united. scented plant is the only real compromise we have in congress today. it is the best shot we have to avoid an economic crisis. grading agents said our plan would avoid downgrading on credit ratings, and conversely, boehner's plan would cause a downgrading. even grover norquist gave his blessing to our plan today. opening the door for republicans

to vote with us. that is why in our meeting today in a room behind me we decided members of our caucus would reach out to republicans colleagues to encourage them to support our plan. the senate plan is a reasonable middle ground. democrats support it because it protects the middle-class, prevent damaging cuts to social security, medicare, and medicaid. republicans should support it because it contains two things they have asked for. it does not contain revenues and the amount of cut needs the amount of the debt ceiling increase. speaker boehner's plan is not a compromise. it was written for the tea party, not for the american people. democrats will not vote for at, democrats will not vote for it,

democrats will not vote for it. it is dead on arrival in the senate if they get it out of the house. the tea party is in the driver posse for house republicans now, and that is a scary thought. that is why i hope republicans colleagues will think long and hard about what direction they want to move. they can either support that he party -- the tea party and their plan that has no chance of passing, or can work with us for a responsible approach. i see that my friends, as we say on the other side of the aisle, let's get this done. let's do what we need to do to work this out. this is so very important to the american people. it is that limit is not increase, every american will have a tax increase, every american, rich and poor, middle- class, otherwise. we need to work together. that is what the american people want, and that is what i have

expressed time and time again. i was a.l. lawyer, practiced law, i compromised than the got cases settled, avoided the trials, got to trial, many years as a legislator i have learned a long time ago that legislation is the art of compromise, and it is too bad people on the other side of this capitol do not know those words. >> you think boehner is as committed as mcconnell is to avoiding default? >> i believe the speaker would like to avoid a default, but he has a funny way of showing it. he is an uncompromising, and based on the right wing direction that his caucus has

taken, unless he decides to step backward and be a statesman and not be driven with these right- wing ideologues, that is where we are headed. [unintelligible] pardon me. i have not decided yet. we have an opportunity to do that, and i hope we are in a cquorum call. we hope to meet with the republican leader soon and see what ideas he has. >> all of you were talking -- >> for those of you who could not here, are there talks " on? we just had a vote, and a republican senator who respect, a lot, a very nice man, knowledgeable, knows what is

going on here, he said, i appreciate what you are doing, you are trying to work something out, i appreciate that. he did not say why he was going to vote on my bill, but when we have conversations like that it gives me hope, even though leader mcconnell and i are -- we do not seem to agree a lot on the floor, we get along well, we are friends, we spend time together on the weekend, and i told my caucus today, a few minutes ago, any input you have to your republican friends, get with them. i ask each one of them to reach out to their republican colleagues. is there any way that the gang of six stuff can work through this framework that will allow them to be more positive on what they have over the weekend? i asked my friends to that, and

they came back, the republicans are willing to step out. i am open to compromise, but there are certain principles we will not violate. we are not going to bash social security, medicare, medicaid. the republicans have hung tight on no revenues, fine. we will not have a short-term extension of this debt. it would mean that we would comeback in early october and be right where we are again, the same, same deal, one republican house member said he would like to have this debate every two weeks. not two months, every two weeks. we are not going to have a short-term extension, so there is a discussion regarding that. we will not do that. the president will not agree to

that, and my caucus will not agree to that. >> there will be further discussions in the senate to get your votes? >> there are further discussions going on right now, but we have given the republicans what they wanted. dollar for dollar increases in the debt limit, $2.70 trillion, and one of the things they complained about is, will that -- is that trillion dollars real? economists all over the world recognize the importance of doing what we have done. cbo, omb scores that for more than $1 trillion. the ryan budget contained a $1 trillion in savings winding down the wars in iraq and afghanistan. majority leader kantor

acknowledged the ryan budget counted toward deficit reduction. drawing down the troops would save more than $1 trillion over 10 years. we have given them everything they asked for. $2.70 trillion, dollar for dollar, there is no revenue. [unintelligible] in my caucus, somebody had an ipad and they read it today. the rating agencies are very nervous. there was a congressional hearing today. i do not have that, but the person testifying today said the one thing the markets demand is starting tond debate this thing again in a few weeks is not a certainty. [unintelligible]

excellent question. we tried our best to have a trigger with some of the stuff that president obama worked on with republicans. they worked on the trigger. they could never get there because it would be so unfair if the committee did not arrive at a positive conclusion that the trigger would be all costs. that is really unfair. we cannot get from here to there after having already put to put $7 trillion into the pot. we cannot do that with more cuts. >> 5 democrats and five republicans -- >> if somebody has a proposal,five and five as a

little weak, but we will look at. the gang of six is talking like something like that. [unintelligible] the question is where is there room for compromise? we talked about the right -- we talk about that right here today. i have no authority to that in front of everybody, but there are conversations going on. it seems unusual that we are -- that they are asking what we can compromise. we have already done that. people are interested in solutions. the matter on the floor over here that we have put on the floor is a solution. we're willing to listen to all good ideas, even some bad ideas

to help us move down the road. thanks. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> good afternoon. as you know, the pending business is the reid proposed . it is a $2.70 trillion increase in the debt ceiling. highly suspect spending reduction features. to give you a little history, you can go back to 1972 and 38 times we have raised the debt ceiling for six months and less.

during or reagan's re-election campaign, we raise the ceiling three times. this is an extraordinary request on the part of the president to ask us to raise the debt ceiling $2.70 trillion, and he has and can bid for the reason. he said he wants to get it passed the selection. most of us, all of us think it is more important the right thing for the country, than it is to do the right thing for his election. so to state the obvious, we believe the reproposal is not a serious effort to address the deficit and the debt and should be defeated. need to we engage the president, the only person who can sign the bill into law and get a bipartisan solution that can pass the house, passed the senate, and be signed by the president. >> to correct one thing for the

record, i made the same mistake others have made in believing those who said that the ryan budget, the house-passed budget, used the same accounting gimmicks that the harry reid proposal does in counting all money that we are going to say by not continuing operations in iraq and afghanistan for the next 10 years at their current levels. the that was in the ryan budget. as it turns out, the budget but streets saving -- achieve savings without using that gimmick. compared to the president's number, the ryan budget saves 2.6 trillion dollars without using that gimmick. the ryan budget, if you look through the charts and pages, it also has various comparisons including the obligatory comparison what is called the current law budget.

in that, he compared the oco costs. but he did not utilize that in order to achieve the savings. i had made the same mistake that others had been assuming what we were told was correct. paul ryan made it clear that it was not correct. when we criticize the bill the the majority leader has brought up, using a over a trillion dollars, i think we are correct in asserting it is not a good way to account for savings and that it was not used by the house of representatives when they passed their budget. >> i believe the congress has two objectives this week. at a time when we were borrowing 40 cents of every dollar we spend, we want to be certain we take a step to reduce spending so washington can stop spending money we do not have.

we want to make sure the united states government honors its obligations. we do not want to pay bills out of a cigar box. we believe we can do both at one time. each of us has co-sponsored one or more measures to do that. the house of representatives is considering another way, to permit our government to reduce spending and to honor its obligations. we look forward to working with the president and democratic leaders to make sure we honor both those checks. >> last night, the president addressed the nation. it was a complete -- more of a campaign speech. we heard scare tactics. we've heard a lot of phrases but we did not hear a plan, a solution. the president seems to be clinging to the status quo of raising taxes and spending more money. this is a time when we need

leadership. we do not need a campaign. >> when the president rejected the bipartisan proposal made to him to deal with the debt limit, the center of gravity moved over to congress. congress is doing its job in the house and senate to deal with our unsustainable debt. and the potential for a future crisis. we have said all along there are three criteria by which our votes will be judged -- no default, no tax increases on job creators, and no smoke and mirrors. real solutions to our unsustainable debt. unfortunately, the read proposal that we will be voting on does not pass the smoke and mirrors

test and we will work to defeat this week and take up real reform. [inaudible] >> obviously, as i said earlier, we think the proposal goes in the wrong direction. hopefully we will have an opportunity to demonstrate that. >> sender read it said the plane would not -- the plan would not pass. what you think of its prospects? >> americans for tax reform, the gold standard on the tax issue, endorsed the bay near proposal yesterday. we believe it has broad support. we're doing everything we can to help our friends in the house passed it. i am optimistic they will be

able to do it. [inaudible] >> i do not have to remind you we are one week away from august 2. we need to get an outcome. a republican house have to reach an agreement with the democratic president. we were pretty close sunday afternoon to getting there. to get to get back together and get a solution here. we cannot get a perfect solution controlling only the house of representatives. i am prepared to accept something less than perfect because perfect is not achievable. what i would like to see is progress made on reducing spending, creating a joint committee that gives us a real

opportunity -- i do not want to chastise you guys. this is not a commission. quit calling it a commission. this is a joint committee of congress. it is an expedited procedure and the mechanism to act. it has a real chance of an outcome on entitlement reform and tax reform. a resulttrying to get here. we know we cannot get a result without something that will pass the republican house and be signed by a democratic president. i am going to take one more. >> would you except a deal the raises the debt limit before election day? early last choice option where the president has the authority? >> by members are comfortable with the way the speaker has set this up.

we would be happy to raise the debt ceiling up to the amount of deficit reduction that would be reflected in that amount of increase in the debt ceiling. i think the deficit reduction is a good way to go. that is the way we will operate for the next couple of years. thank you very much. >> jim jordan said he thinks the debt reduction plan will not

pass the house because it does not cut spending enough and would not require a balanced budget. he was joined by house and senate republicans urging passage of a bill to require the treasury secretary to prioritize payments in the event the limit is reached. this is a half an hour. >> it would be ok to have an unspoken thought. in any case, if we can try to keep our comments brief so we can get to the q&a. although the president's speech did not give me a great deal of confidence, i still hope that the president will drop his insistence on a tax increase, dark -- drop his opposition to a

balanced budget so we can reach an agreement prior to august 2. at this late stage, it is obvious to everybody that it is possible that we will not have raised the debt ceiling by august 2. if that date passes without the debt ceiling having been raised, we believe it is essential that the federal government have a plan for prioritizing the payments that can, should, and must be made using the resources the government will have, especially ongoing tax resources. some of us have been making this argument for many months. the administration has persisted in denying a can or will prioritize payments in this scenario. instead, they persisted in predicting a default, implying they will choose to default on our bonds.

treasury secretary dieter said, "this would be an unprecedented event in american history. it would inflict damage on our nation's economy, reducing growth and reducing unemployment." president obama said, "if investors of the world thought the united states was not backed up, if they thought we might renege on our ious, it could unravel the financial system. we could have a worse recession than we already had. " it is within the power of this administration to avoid that scenario, regardless of whether we do raise the debt limit. these are scare tactics. they are meant to intimidate republicans into voting for the package the administration wants. it is irresponsible and dangerous.

the administration should not be threatening to make the impasse more destructive than it needs to be. now there are reports that treasury officials are calling big bank executives, assuring them that if the debt limit is not raised, they will nevertheless ensure there is no default on our bond. while it is well and good for the administration to provide that assurance on wall street, it is about time we provide that to senior citizens around the country. that is why we are introducing a bill ensuring the full faith and credit of the united states in protecting america's soldiers and seniors. i'm delighted to report that we already have 31 co-sponsors in the senate. the number has been growing consistently. our bill would instruct the treasury secretary, in the event the debt is not raised, and to make certain all applications

priorities so they will be paid in full, on time, and without delay. the three priorities are simple -- interest on our debt so we will not default and not plunge our economy into chaos. , -- so so security payments. millions of citizens, including my parents, depend on the social security payments they have earned by virtue of their prior contributions to the system. the payroll for active duty military personnel. the men and women who are risking their lives for us should not have to worry whether their families will receive their income in a timely fashion. there are far more than enough resources for the administration to make these payments and many others. from august 3 through 31, the total revenue will be a least $170 billion, perhaps once more

-- much more. the cost of paying our interest and active duty military will be about $81 billion. less than half of the revenue coming in during the month of august. these numbers are not made out by somebody in my office. these are provided by the policy center. they have been confirmed by other sources. let me close by this -- this bill is not a substitute for raising the debt limit. i am -- i have voted in favor of raising the debt limit provided we are on the path to a balanced budget. what this bill is about as minimizing whenever disruption might otherwise occur. if the debt limit is not raised prior to august 2. i hope that this legislation never needs to be implemented but it would be irresponsible to be unprepared or unwilling to

minimize the potential for disruption. i would like to introduce to the chairman jim jordan. >> let me be a real quick to say there is enough money in the month of august to make sure that bondholders get paid, so security recipients get their check and the men and women who wear our uniform get paid. this bill spells that out. i think as the senator indicated, when you have the president of united states trying to scare people instead of doing what i think is appropriate for a president, which is to reassure people of what the facts are, we think it is critical to bring this bill forward. i just want to commend the senator and his colleagues, many of them have sponsored similar legislation in the house. we think it is important to

reassure the american people that there is enough money to take care of the things that need to be paid for. we are committed to doing that. it looks like there may be a chance we get passed on a second. it is critical this bill be introduced and passed. >> thank you for your leadership. i have been working with pat and others. right now is important and timely. the idea is simple -- four months we have heard about u.s. government to the fall. there is no reason that has to happen, no matter what. this bill will make that clear and ensure that. more recently, we have heard of sosa security checks not going out to seniors. there is no reason that should never happen. this bill will make that clear

and ensure that. again, there is no reason, no matter what those checks ever have to be disrupted. this bill will make that clear and ensure that. we owe all of those groups, and i would put seniors at the top of that list, that reassurance. the fact that they have been scared in the tactics of this battle is unfortunate. we owe them that priority. we owe them that reassurance. next is a congressman's wife heard from arizona. -- sweikert from arizona. >> how often have we heard the word team fault? that is if we do not pay on the coupons. our bonds. then the attempt for the

demonstrate -- administration to scare our seniors. we have enough cash flow. it would have been a much more honest discussion and much more genuine and interesting to have a discussion about the 1/3 of spending. why this is so important. the administration probably has this type of authority. so theffer the language administration might stop playing disingenuous games with language. thank you. >> did not make it with us. >> i will fill land. i could never do that. it was disconcerting to hear the president speak about what he was opposed to instead of what he was in favor of.

there are days to go to the deadline of august 2. we have still yet to have this answer to the fiscal problem. my colleagues all join us and say we are looking for a solution rather than a deal. the house of representatives did that. we listened to the american public when we passed a balanced approach when we passed cutting spending, placing caps on it over the next several years, and paying the balance of the budget as the final linchpin in that solution to our fiscal problems. that is the first that. when it went over to the senate, the senate did not vote no, they postponed a vote. they did not engaged in any debate and put it off to another day. we are encouraged that they may come but until it does, we have the legislation before us to answer the next question, prioritizing the debt and making sure seniors are paid and we do

not default. now look to the other senator mike lee. >> we know it is wise to plan for the best and prepare for the worse. that is what this bill does. i commend senator jordan and others route brought this forward. this is something that allows us to avoid having america's senior citizens be used as pawns to avoid as what people are improperly referring to as a default. the one plan that has been put forward to raise the debt limit, to address this problem, was put forward by this same group here. it was passed in the house with the support of five democrats. when it came over to the senate, it was denied opportunity for a

vote, not to stand up for down vote, but any meaningful debate or discussion or an amendment process. we think this is unfortunate. it is no coincidence that this happened as a result of a cnn poll released just one day after that the american people were overwhelmingly in support of it. along the lines it was passed in the house of representatives. we think that is still the plan. from outside groups across the country, we are preparing for the worst in the event that, if we reach or past the deadline, this will make sure our senior citizens and our troops and those who -- are not used as pawns to force a deal that is not wise for the american people. at this point, i will turn the

time over to the representative from carolina. >> one of the criticisms you will hear is the treasury cannot do it. there are 80 million checks a month. they physically cannot do this. my first reaction is, what have they been doing since january? they should have been working on this since january. what we're hearing now, the better answer is that with the private discussions, he has been working on how to do this. he does have the ability to prioritize the interest payments and social security as well. it is another red herring from the administration when they say they physically cannot do this. i will turn it over to senator paul. >> if there is a crisis on august 2, if there is a decline in the stock market, if there is a hysterical reaction, the blame

and responsibility lies squarely on the shoulders of the president. at any point in the last six months, he could take the fault of the table. he could look at the numbers and reassure the market that he will pay the interest on the debt. he should reassure the senior citizens he will pay their checks. he should reassure these soldiers. if something happens august 2, the blame and responsibility lies squarely on his shoulders. i call on the president to support this legislation, to come forward and say he will not default. joe wash. -- walsh. >> let me be brief and let me be blunt. this president has created a mess. like a 10-year-old child, and we have offered to help clean up this mess. like children often do, he stomps his feet and pointed his

fingers. he has made threats. that has not been helpful in cleaning up this mess. this legislation is one more in series -- serious attempt to reassure -- reassure the people we will help clean up. we are calling on the president to finally lead and be a constructive voice in this instead of trying to continue to scare the american people. >> representative steve sutherland. >> over the seven months i have been here, i have found washington is broken. the american people and the world have seen the broken this as far as the solutions that we put forward. last week, when we passed cut,

cap, and balance, i believe the key component to that was the balanced budget amendment. fiscal responsibility, the crown jewel in the middle, would be a balanced budget amendment that lets the american people choose, through the exercising of freedom, choose, how they want their capital to operate. i will tell you, the reason that that is the crown jewel is because it is in line with whatever american family has to do. every small business including that which might family operates. i urge all of the decision makers at this capital to do what 85% of americans want, the opportunity to set the stage for a balanced budget amendment to be enacted and adhered to in this nation's capital and to put a constraint on a city that has $175 billion coming into the

treasury but continues writing checks out of over $300 billion. that does not work in the american family, it does not work in small business. as i have alluded to, that violates walking around sense that my parents and grandparents taught me by the age of 10. >> senator johnson? >> laich steve, i recognize how broken washington is. that is why i sent a letter to president obama signed by 22 of my colleagues. said it was irresponsible for the president to scare the people the way he was doing. it was irresponsible to shape -- assume he is going to get an increase without fixing the problem. it is irresponsible not to have a plan b. it has been irresponsible. the responsible thing is to pass

this piece of legislation. i want to talk about the annual numbers. we can see on a monthly basis, we can cover these essential services. according to the budget, if we do not pass that increase, we have to live within our means. on an annual basis, 2.6 trillion dollars, and to put that into context, that is $800 billion more than we spent 10 years ago under bill clinton. it covers the interest on the debt. it covers social security. it leaves 1.6 trillion dollars for all other services. that is only $200 billion less than two years ago. this does not have to be a crisis as long as we plan for it. this administration has not made those plants. that is unfortunate.

>> does anybody find it ironic that last night you had a speech from the president of the united states spreading gloom and doom and fear and today you have a group of republican senators and congressmen trying to reassure america? it seems like there has been a juxtaposition here. in any event, back in march, it was clear that our military and fear of our military not being paid, it became obvious i filed a bill to make sure the military never had to worry about whether or not they would be paid. since then, the president has taken to schering others, like our seniors, and potentially scary people who hold our indebtedness.

that they might not get paid. that is so irresponsible. i agree with the republican icon who said last night, he came out and gave a political speech that was inappropriate. we want to assure america that the money there to do the things that we must do, it is irresponsible for the president to say, i have $100 billion left from tarp assets that i do not want to touch. i would rather scary the seniors. i have 100 billion from this that and the other. it is irresponsible. this bill -- i love being able to deal with pat to me when he headed an organization concerned about creating new jobs. it is even better dealing with him as an ally down a hall.

i appreciate the work put into this bill. if you will read it, you will see there are findings that are separate from -- we want to see the chinese -- this says that if you will look at block, you will find social security is separate. seniors do not have to worry. there is $2.6 trillion in the trust fund. just as in 1985 and 1996 when there was a shortfall for covering the checks, treasury notes were sold. in 1996, it can only be used to pay the benefits and expenses of social security. this points that out to help reassure america. we're going to be good for our debts and obligations. those who are counting on getting checks.

then we are going to work the rest of this out. do not worry. i am glad to stand with you. at this point, ok. richard nugent. nope. ok. >> i'll be brief. no sense about tell me about my support for this. how actions speak louder than our words. to answer a quick question, what is the impact of the americans speech on the american people? one of the first e-mails i got from a lady in my district.

she listened to the president last night. she had the intent of following through on his request, to contact my member of congress. so i am contacting you by e- mail. let me tell you what i like you to support, cut, cap, and balance. thank you all. >> i'm from south carolina. there is a philosophical difference between the people of the white house to think we had a revenue problem. they want to tax americans more second span more of america's tax dollars. and then you have the philosophical difference of men and women standing on the stage and within the halls of congress. and really americans across the land they understand that we have a spending problem. we are spending $1.5 trillion more than we are bringing in annually. we have debts mounting up. dangerous to loiter at the

crossroads of history. we want to take an -- do we want to take the neville chamberlain route that kicks that can pass the election, or do we want to take the hard road, the winston churchill road says that we're going to fight on the beaches, we're going to fight you in the beaches, we're on the fight you in the air, to make structural places -- structural changes to how washington, d.c. operates. to ensure the american people that we want to change business as usual here in d.c.. and now we have this plan which will ensure the american people that we're going to meet the needs of all we think are the most crucial in this country, to let them understand that we're going to take care of your knees while we work out the long term solutions to the problems that we face. washington is looking for a deal, america is looking for solutions. >> thank you, everybody.

any questions? >> bayh these obligations more important than other legal obligations? >> for the reasons that we cited. many of us believe that it would be very imprudent to choose to default on our debt for specific things. the economic chaos that would insure -- ensue. so security is vital for many american singers. and we feel obligation for the men and women who are literally risking their lives in wars that are under way right now. these are not the only things that can be paid. as he could face some -- as you can see, there are other expenses that can be paid. we think that those rise the highest level of importance. >> my first question, what should not get paid? >> we ought to get a solution to this problem.

everyone on this platform voted for a solution or advocates that, namely, that we put our budget on past the balance. if the president refuses to come along with putting that into place, then there is a danger that we will cross the august 2 deadline, and in that case, these are the priorities. there room for other payments to be made, and it is not our intent to specify every dollar, but to identify these important programs and to avoid default on our debt. >> could i see a show of hands which plan to vote against the speaker's plan? why? [inaudible] [laughter] >> i was hoping we would focus more on the issue a hand. but if you want to comment on that. >> we appreciate the speaker's hard work. but if you look at this, it is $7 billion in reduction from

where we are at. we advocate is something much more. we advocated more in the budget plan that the house passed their we also have real concerns about the commission, six democrats and one republican want to raise taxes, you cannot keep that off the floor. so there are real problems with this plan. but most importantly, we actually think the plan that has been drafted, put into bill form, been debated, been passed by congress, it would prevent a downgrade, we think that plan makes good sense. and the one that the american people support. we like that plan much better. that is why we support it. >> let me also answer with regard to like these priorities, we said that these are equal. a reason i think they are priorities is that these are the people the president has tried to scare. frankly if the president comes out with another group that he

tries to scare, we will probably say, though, we need to reassure them, too. we are emphasizing the groups he tried to scare that should not be scared. >> you say you oppose the plan. how many other house republicans oppose the speaker's plan? >> i am confident that there were not 218 republicans in support this plan. >> if that were the only plan, would you be moved to support it? it may be the only thing, given that tampering -- the time frame. by the housepassed sheppard house that further down the road?

-- it has not passed the house yet. how was that further down the road? [inaudible] >> you send a balanced budget amendment to the stage, we are willing to work with you. but getting that structural change, duncan said it does come of washington always want to deal. americans want a solution. this will actually fix the problem implicit in those -- puts into those places -- puts into place those things that will actually solve the problem. it is not specified the specifies the top priorities, equally weighted, avoid default on our debt by paying the interest to our bondholders, pay the benefits to social security beneficiaries on time as scheduled, and pay the active- duty military personnel. that leaves hundreds of billions of dollars left over and that we

would lead to the discretion of the administration for whatever short period of time we need. thank you very much. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2011] >> although the senate did not officially began debate on the democratic plan, they were on the floor to discuss the issue. this portion is a little less than an hour. cotry and what amazes me for the time that i've been here and privileged to serve the citizens of massachusetts for 27 years now is that never have i seen a

moment where the consequences of inaction can have as potentially a damaging effect on our country as the consequences may if we are downgraded in our debt. just downgrade not even defaulting. and yet some of our colleagues in the united states congress, particularly on the other side of the aisle in the house, are, despite all the evidence, all of the judgments made by knowledgeable people, by economists, by business people, by outside observers about the danger and inadequacy of what they're proposing, despite that they'r insisting notn a matter of common sense or as a

matter of logical economic policy but insisting as a matter of politics and ideology on holding the entire economy of our country hostage and be damned with the risks. notwithstanding what that may mean for 401(k)'s for families, what that may mean for investments that are on the brink today becausef the fragility of the economy, notwithstanding any of the advice of people who deal with money on a daily basis in terms of invesents, these people, many of tm who've never served in public life in their lives, never been part of a compromise but have come here with one ideological purpose, these people are putting the entire nation at risk. there are a lot of people here, particularly here in the senate

on the other side of the aisle, o know this is dangerous and who know the risks we're taking and who know that there are better alternatives, but because of the politics of the situati situation, they're being locked in, not allowed to stand up and exercise or at least unwilling at this point to stand up and exercise their judgment and, frankly, their responsibility as sworn to uphold the constitution of the united states of america to come here and do the business of our country. the deadline for default may be just a week away but no one should have any illusion that what is happening right now today is already hurting the economy of our country. and it's already hurting our country. this is embarrassing for the nation. it's embarrassing for the united states of america to be having

such a dysfunctional display for everybody in the world to see that we, who run around the world promoting democracy, are unable to make our own democracy work right here at home. the fact is, all you have to do is read today's article in "the boston globe" with the headline, "uncertainty has massachusetts firms wary of hiring." that's what's happening right now. this is already having a negative impact. maybe that's what some of the people on the other side of the aisle in the house wan. maybe they want the economy to come down so they can win politically and point to the president and says, "oh, it's his fault we don't have the jobs," even though they're weakening the economy with their obstinacy and with their ideological rigidity. today's article says, "still cautious from the last recessi recession, many business owners

worryhat government leaders will be unable to reach an agreement while others are concerned about exactly the agreement, while any agreement will invariably include spending cuts and weaken an already lackluster recovery." mad, this is no way to -- madam president, this is no way to provide economic stewardship and, most importantly, it'so way to run a government. there are countless snulingses that rely on the united states for us to go out and help other nations to be able to recover economically. met yesterday with the finance minister and deputy prime minister of greece. greece is taking enormous steps right now to try to bring its debt down, and all of the euro zone has joined in that effort of the and italy and spain are likewise at risk in their

economies. but the i.m.f. is a critical component of that economy and thunited stateis a critical component of the i.m.f. efforts and we have a significant amount of our capital at risk in the i.m.f., as so what happens there is important to what happens here. but this place is not behaving like there's no interconnectedness. let me tell you what i hear from a l of smart people, smarter than i am about the economics, but i listen to them and i can tell they're deadly sear qulus they s that we're playing with fire with respect to the greek recovery and with respect to italy and spain and the rest of europe. and if they start to go down, then you have a caticaid and it begins to have a greater impact on the united states of america. that's what's at risk in this dangerous game of political chicken that is being played by people of such ideological

rigidity that they're unwilling to even compromise. i heard an interview yesterday with one senator and a television commentator of one of the cable shows who asked him repeatedly, well, what are you willing to compromise on? and in the end it became clear that he wasn't willing to compromise on the fundamental notions of how you arrive at an reement here. we need to reach out across the aisle, both of us, democrat, republican, reach out across the aisle and come together on a deal, on a solution, a solution to a critical problem that challenges all of us where there is a solution staring us in the face. and we need to do that before we, as a result of the inability of people to make that compromise, before those who take that position of ideological rigidity, before that do greater harm to our

economy and to our country's reputation. we need to put an end to the time clocks that are running out, how long it is before a default, which sends an enormous message of uncertainty and of incompetence, of dysfunctional politics on a daily basis. every tick of that clock drums into people the inadequacy of what is happening here right n now, and back in 1983 president ronald reagan, who many of the people who are taking this position of complete object city nancy -- o bst inancy, whom many of them revere, they ought to listen to what he said. he wrote "the denigration of the full faith and credit of the united states would have substantial effects on the united states markets and vaflt dollar on the engs change markets. the nation can ill-afford to

allow such a result." now almost 30 years later, some house republicans have absolutelyurned their backs on the legacy of ronald reagan. instead, they continue to play their cynical game of chicken with the president, with the congress, with the american people, with our economy, with our reputation, with our future by refusing to negotiate a clearly achievable, clearly definable compromise agreement that would extend the debt limit, something that happened 17 times under ronald reagan. their negotiating strategy? don't negotiate. do what we say, no matter what the dger or how ill-thought-out the consequences may be. david stockman, the former office and management o.m.b. director under president reagan said the following about the house republicanudge

he said, "i think the biggest problem is revenues. it's simply unreal list stk to say that raising revenue isn't part of the solution. it's a measure of how far off the deep end republicans have gone with this religious catechism about taxes. in taking this extreme approach, the house republicans have also ma a dirty word out of the basic tenet of american democracy:compromise. i mean, do they know nothing about history? have they forgotten about the missouri compromise? have they forgotten about countless great comomises that brought people together to pass some of the great efforts of our nation with respect to the social structure of our country? the house republican party has taken this approach even though they know and agree with what ronald reagan said 30 years ago and they know it's true today.

now, expts are telling us that even a short-term crisis could lead to a permanent downgrading or stain, if you will, on the treasuries of our country. it could prove particularly damaging to the willingness of foreign investors to buy treasuries. if foreign investors start to should i away from treasuries -- if foreign investo investor stay away from treasuries- you can never ghat liquidity premium back if you create a precedent. that's the tng that would be irreparable. the end result of such a scenario: higher interest rates in the united states. madam president, i just met a few moments ago with a businessman who is engaged in major invtments here in this country and elsewhere on an

international basis who told me -- reinforced to me the danger of what we are facing right now in just a downgrade. what he said to me is that nobody can tell you what the real impact of that downgrade is going to be. what happens to valuationed all the way down the economic -- what happens to value indications wall the way down the economic food chain? what happens to judgment judgmet interest? what happens to the judgmen about the auctions and the next market and so forth? nobody knows he can't tell me, and he does this for a living and has very successfully for a lifetime. and that's what they're worried about. there is a moment here. nobody knows exactly when it is. but there is a moment here when, as you get close enough and the

dysfunctionality becomes the ovwhelming dominating feature of this effort, that someone is going to cut and say, okay, time to downgrade. and then what happens? what kind of downward spiral throws out of that? i don' know, but i know that we shouldn't be pushing it to the limit and taking that risk. why are people taking that risk? why are people, despite all the commentary that says we ought to be reaching across the aisle, we ought to sit down, the way we used to around here, why are they doing this? i'll tell you why. because they want only one way of approaching this solution: their way. because they want to so dramatically cut federal spending and cut entitlements without increasing revenues at all. no matter how successful people have been at the upper end of our comirks no matter how much

money people have made, they say, you can't even ask a billionaire for $100. you can't even ask a billionaire for $500. nothing. nada. no. that's it. and that's the reason they're willing to take the country to the brink. they know they don't have enough votes to even pass the budget that they're screaming about still, but they're not running around trying to find the alternative. they're going to push it anyway, have a vote on it anyway, send a amatic, stupid message of incompetence to the world and drag the united states of america down with it. it's stunning what a group of extremists can do who are trying to get their unrealistic and impossible budget passed, which even a lot of republicans know they're not going to vote for. the boehner plan would require draconian entitlement policy

changes. to meet the $1.8 trillion in cuts over the next decade without any increase in revenues, policy-makers would be forced to cut social surity, end medicare benefits, and that's not a scare tactics, that is an absolute reality of what would have to happen if you proceed to do those cuts the way they're structuring them. and you would eviscerate the safety net for low-income children, for fairnt parents for citizens and people with disabilities. one of the worst and most disturbing components of this plan, of the boehner plan -- it's incomprehensible to me -- they want to do this whole thing all over again in six months. there's no economic reason that you have to do it again in six months. because they purposefully left out the money that could come from reducing our engagement in the wars in iraq and

afghanistan, which is going to come. they purposel purposely left thy out so it wouldn't show the amount of savings that could get you through next november. and the reason they purposefully left this out is so that they can come back and do this same exercise aga next february and make all of the discussion in america about debt, deficit when we're perfectly freepped have a serious discussio not about -- perfectly prepared to he a serious discussion about solving it. you don't need a constitutional amendment to do our duty. you don't need a constitutional amendment to balance the budget. and i know what i'm talking about on that because i was here when we balanced the budget in the 1990's without a constitutional amendment. we balanced the budget five tis since world war i i and we've done it each time without a constitutional amendment.

so let's not have this phony structured setup that's pure politics. i am a sure they're raising a lot of money from their base on it every single day, but that's not wt this ought to be about. this ought to be about solving the economic problems of our country. a short-term plan is not necessary and it is, most importantly, not wise, because if we go through this exercise again in six months in the same way that we've gone through it in the last few months, we're going to drive this economy right down and down. now maybe that's what they want. so they can then blame president obama and turn around and blame the democrats who are responsible here in the senate, because there's no other rationale for wanting to come back and do this in six month when we can do this with the joint committees that are in both the boehner plan and in

senator reid's plan. we have the ability to set up a structure like the brac closer commissions, where we have to vote, where we're forced to do this on an accelerated basis, where we tie ourselves into a process that requires the united states senate to do its duty and the congress to do its duty. we can lock that in right now. we're not kicking anything down the road if we do that and require us not to have a balanced budget amendment that goes out all across the country for stats to have to ratify. but, rather, do the job we were sent here to do and do it in the next few months. nays what we could be doing -- that's what we cld be doing. if we don't do that then the downgrade that might take place swrr? the next few days -- somewhere in the next few days could drive up interest rates and that'll have naggive eect on the onomy. a student with a student loan

will feel that impact. somebody with a car loan will feel that impact. anybody with a credit card intg to feel that impact. people with mortgages will feel that impact. and that will mean more money out of pocket to make up for the dereliction of duty of the united states congress. beaver madamadam president, thee completely dangerous and unchartered waters that we're sailinsailing into. at a time wheany downgrade coule disastrous effects for our financial system in tesms those other countries which i have already talked about and i think it is an unacceptable risk and it should require us to find the compromise and find it now. i might add that the boehner plan is not even supported on wall street. let me quote christine cooper, who

is the head of the u.s. dollar derivatives trading in new york at jeffries and company. he said "from the market's point of view, a two-stage plan is a nonstarter because we know it's amateur hour on capitol hill, and we don't wt to be painted into this corner again." he went on to say "there is significant risk of a downgrade with a deal that ties further cuts to another vote only a few months down the road, given the significant resistance to do the right thing now." i thi that -- frankly, i think that's logical. every american can understand that. if you've got some money to invest and you're sitting there watching what's happening here right now, and then you learn that our way of dealing with it is going to be to have another vote in six months for the same reason, lift the debt ceiling, when everybody knows we don't have to do that, would you say,

oh, that's a really good, clear climate for investment. let's go put our money into whatever it is out there because we know congress is going to do the right thing. no. no way, madam president. everybody knows that. the fact is that the president has said he's going to veto the speaker's plan. so, senators, we know he's going to veto it. we know it's a bad plan, and we ought to stop discussing proposals that are going to go nowhere and get the job done for something that can bring everybody together. now, in an effort to forge a bipartisan compromise, senator reid has reached way beyond at many members of our caucus really wanted to do or think is the appropriate balance here, but we're acting responsibly in order to try to get the job done. and so, we are willing to eend

the debt ceiling through 2012 without revenues at this time, with the understanding that we will have the ability to be able to come back to the floor with the process of a joint committee, providing it's tied to a very clear schedule with very clear requirements about no filibusters, with very clear requirements about amendments and voting. madam president, i'd ask unanimous consent that i just be able to wrap up fairly quickly. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. kerry: madam president, the spending cuts that are in senator reid's proposal are only those that republicans have previously agreed to. so, no revenues, cuts,

$2.-something trillion dollars. weave cuts in there republicans have already agreed to and again a fixed period of time. i think that proposal gives our economy the certainty that it needs in order to create jobs now, not six months from now. not maybe some time next year. everybody understands how anemic america's job creation isow. the last thing the job market needs is this kind of brinksmanship, gamesmanship and cynical toefrt hold the entire -- effort to hold the entire economy of our economy hostage when better proposals are on the table in front of us, which everybody can understand. the majority leader's proposal includes the following -- includes the capacity for that joint kph-s to include -- joint committee to include recommendations and legislave language on tax reform. we all know we need tax reform. and i believe that the senate

and the house ought to do their job, both of us. and what senator reid's plan does is actually calls on the senate to live up to its ultimate responsibility. the speaker's plan has no such language, nothing that requires that kind of participation. the deficit commission was chaired by former republican senator alan simpson. all of that work is being ignored right now. and the so-called gang of six here did an outstanding job, in my judgment, of helping to put together a bipartisan plan which actually included revenue and, i think, some 20-some republican senators were prepared to support a thoughtful, balanced plan that had both revenues as well as cuts. so we can find common ground here. we need to find that common ground here. over the last year we've seen a number of bipartisan plans put forward on the debt limit.

i think that the effort of the gang of six really exemplified the best tradition of the senate, where a group of members reach across the aisle and worked with each other to tackle the tough issues. that's how we got a budget deal in 1990. that's how we got a budget deal in 1997. we have done this before, and we did it growing our economy, creating 23 million new jobs, creating a surplus of $5.6 trillion. and had we stayed on that course, we would next year be paying down the debt of our nation completely for the first time since andrew jackson was president of the united stas. everybody here knows why we went off track. i don't need to go through that again now. but i think that we will not be able to resolve this current impasse until colleagues on both sides of the aisle, and

especially in the house, where there seems to be the greatest ideological resistance to common sense right now, decide to put aside that ideology and decide what is best for the united states of america. we can't be responsible if we don't get serious first. far too much is at stake for the senate to do anything less than the united states senate was intended to do at moments like this. we are called the world's greatest deliberative body. there aren't many americans who would look at us right now and give us that appropriate moniker. we have to earn it. and i think in the next hours we can do that, madam president. d i thank the chair and i thank my colleagues for their forebearance. a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from tennessee. mr. corker: do you know how much time i have allotted? the presiding officer: the senate is in morning business with senators permitted to speak

for up tten minutes each. mr. corker: thank you, ma'am. i doubt i'll do this but if i get up to eight minutes or so, please let me know so i know i'll have two left. madam president, the last time i was on the floor was july 14, and i was very concerned, maybe upset about the fact that it appeared that where we are on this debt ceiling discussion was looking for a political way for everybody to raise the debt ceiling without anybody taking ownership. and obviously that wasn't what i came to the senate to do, and i came down and had choice words for both sides of theisle in that regard. i actually come here today with a glimmer of hope. the reason i say that, to my owledge, in this debt ceiling debate, we may be, i think this is the first time that actually legislation has been offered from both sides of the aisle to

look at spending reductions over the course of this next year. to me, that is progress. i think that we ought to foc on the fact that finally here in this body we're on the right subject. we've sort of wandered around in the wilderness here for several weeks as this debt ceiling was coming up and focused on many things that were not going to solve the problem, and then a couple of weeks ago we focused on a way to try to figure out a way to usurp, get rid of our responsibilities in dealing with this. i'm kind of uplifted because, as was mentioned, a democratic senator h a proposal, a republican house member has a proposal, and now finally we're on the topic that matters. and that is we have proposals before us that are beginning to look at what we might do to look at spending reductions.

i mean, the fact is the reason this debt ceiling debate is what it is is all of us are concerned about future deficits. all us are concerned about where our country is going. all of us are concerned about the fact that if we don't deal with this issue responsibly, we're going to end up with a downgrade in our debt regardless. i mean, even if we make it, if we had a clean debt ceiling vote, which obviously is not going to occ now, if you had a clean debt ceiling vote, we'd be right back at the table trying to figure out a way to keep from having a downgrade. so for what it's worth, i'm choong today to come to the floor and to be slightly optimistic because both sides of the aisle are beginning to look at ways of reducing tt issue. the rating agencies and actually, you know, we don't put a lot of faith in them, i know, but smart people that actually buy treasuries have said the order of magnitude that we need

to deal with as it relates to deficit spending over the next short period of time is a minimum of $4 tllion. and that $4 trillion has to be real, and that $4 trillion needs to be accompanied by entitlement reforms. now, madam president, what i would say is that right now i dot think there's any propol that's being discussed that is strong enough. and i don't say that to knock any of the authors. there's nothing out there that i'm aware of that's bng discussed by the media or being discussed in either chamber that really deals with this issue. most of us have taken a position that we want to use the debt ceiling vote to force dramatic reductions in deficits, dramatic reductions in spending. and fortunately, we've gotten to that place finally. we just have gotten there in the last 24 hours. so this is my hope,

madam president. we know that none of the proposals that are out there now are strong enough, none of the proposals that are out there -- i'm talking about in legislative language. there are a lot of people working in other ways to try to come up with a solution. but there's no legislative language out there yet that actually forces us to do the things we need to do to achieve not being downgraded, if you will, after this debt ceiling vote occurs. and so what i would say is, i know it appears we're going to be voting on a proposal that the majority leader has offered. it's very apparent to me that it's not going to pass. i know there a some activities that might be taking place in the house over the next 24 hours. but at least we have both sides of the aisle talking about the right topic finally. it's taken us awhile tpo get here. -- awhile to get here. and i would urge that we sit down, figure out a way to make the proposals that are being

discussed real, make sure they don't have gimmicks and they force us to do those things that we need to do to make sure that we don't just kick the can down the road, pass something that looks le we've actually taken action, but to pass something instead that actually will address the issues that we have before us. so, madam president, again, i've got a glimmer of hope. both sides of the aisle offered proposals. no doubt in both cases not near strong enough, but both sides have offered proposals that look at reducing the deficits over the next year or so. so i would urge people to sit down like members have done recently on other proposals, let's sit down and figure out a way to make some proposals strong enough that we know that not only have we moved past this

debt ceiling vote, but we've also put in place those actions that will cause us to make it through this entire next year in a way that we know we're not going to be downgraded by the krd rating age -- by the credit rating agencies and have other issues. there's not a proposal before us today that does it, but both sides of the aisle are talking about proposals. that, to me, is a sign for a degree of optimism. if we need to extend the debt ceiling issue for a week while we work out the details or whatever, let's do it. but let's don't let this opportunity where we finally have both sides of the aisle talking about the right subject, let's don't let this opportunity go by. let's solve this problem while the focus is on it. and, mad president, i thank you for allowing me to come to the floor. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the

majority leader. mr. reid: i ask morning siness be extended until 5:00, i be recognized at 5:00, and following the statement -- senator corker are you finished? that senator sessions be recognized for ten minutes. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. sessions: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from alabama. mr. sessions: i thank the majority leader and appreciate his courtesy as always on so many of the issues that come before the senate. i would just like to say a couple of things. one is fundamental, and that is crisis we face -- and i think my senator, colleague from tennessee would agree -- is not the debt limit. 's the debt. it's the surging debt. and the debt limit is congress's power, and it says to the administration, you can't raise,

you can't borrow any more money. wenly authorize so much money to be borrowed. like a 102-mark on your thermometer, it's not the thermometer that's the problem, it's the underlying fever that the thermometer indicates. so breaching the debt limit so soon after we raised it is an indication that we have something unhealthy in our system that needs to be dealt with. senator reid has got very, very diffult challenges before him. it is not easy, but as i like to remind him, he asked for the job and hopefully he can make progress at this point in time. but to raise the debt ceiling, the majority leader knows a couple of things.

he knows one that the republican congress and the american people want to see changes in our spending. it's on a reckless path. we cannot continue on this path, and so the idea is shouldn't we change what we are doing that's put us in a situation in which 40 cents of every dollar we spend today is borrowed. this year we will pay pay $240 billion in interest on our national debt. under the budget that the president submitted to us that was voted down, i will acknowledge 97-0 in the senate, but itndicates a death path that we're on. it would cause in the tenth year interest to be paid in one year of $940 billion. a stunning figure. the federal road program is about 40.

the federal education is about 100. we would be curnlg surging from 240 to 940 just in interest on this surging debt, according to the congressional budget office, our experts. i would note also that despite the debts that we have been running up, president bush's last year was an extraordinary deficit, $450 billion. president obama's deficits have been 1,300, 200 billion, 1,300,000,000,000. it's expected to be 1.5 trillion, 1,500,000,000,000,000. and in the first two years of president obama's administration, his nondefense discretionary spending surged 24%. and this does not count the stimulus almost $900 billion that we surged out the door that was supposed to stimulate the economy. so speaker boehner, and i think

with the support of the american people, speaker boehner has said well, we could do a fairly large increase in our debt ceiling to allow the country to continue to borrow or we could do a sho one but we in the house and the republican house believe we have got to confront our problems so i would propose and he has stated that the house would vote to raise the debt ceiling but only to the extent to which spending has been reduced an equal amount. so if you reduce spending enough over ten years, you get an immediate increase in the debt ceiling of an equal amount now. if you reduce spending over ten years a larger amount, well, you could increase the debt limit a larger amount. and it's become a vehicle, an opportunity for the american

people to understand how we are surging out of control, spiraling out of control and how it is that congress has got to figure out a way to rein this in. it's just unsustainable the path that we are on. so there is $1 per -- $1 increase in debt ceiling per $1 reduction in spending kind of caught on. people seem to be going along with that, seem to be fairly reasonable. and senator reid claims that the debt ceiling that he's got a plan that would reduce spending spending $2.7 trillion over ten years, and that this would allow him to raise the debt ceiling about that amount and that this would allow us to in effect raise it enough that we wouldn't have to talk about this again

for almost two years, about 22 months. well, okay. that sort of seemed to meet what speaker boehner had suggested, but i'm the ranking member of the budget committee and i have been a real critic of what's been going on. i have been predicting we were going to end up at the last minute, a bill was going to be thrown on the floor and i was concerned it was going to be filled with gmicks, it wasn't going to be honest, and we were going to be told if we don't pass it, the republic is going to fall,nd no matter what's in it, we haveot to pass it and don't worry about it, just trust us on tse numbers. unfortunately, that's where we're getting. setor reid in his

his $2.7 trillion in claimed deficit reduction, about about $1.2 trillion of that is savings from the war in iraq and afghanistan. well, that's not ever been projected to stay at the current level of $158 billion a year for ten years. that's not -- that's an extra spending item. speaker boehner when he proposes a proposal that would reduce spending for a shorter term, he doesn't count savings from the declining war expenditure becae that's not base line expenditure. and we have never extended and planned to do that. we never planned to spend spend $158 billion a year in the ne ten years. it is inevitably going to drop. so say it could go to zero, some say to 50, saving

saving $100 billion or a little more a year for the next decade. so we calculate that senator reid and the budget committee staff, the republican staff calculates that this is over over $1 trillion in inaccurate estimaons of spending reductions. it just is. it should not be counted. speaker boehner doesn't count it inis numbers. he also claims, senator reid does, $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions from spending caps. by capping discretionary spending, thathis would save save $1.2 trillion. well, those caps are counted from a base line that ignores the savings that were enacted in the full year c.r. that we did the year we were in.

so what happens was we had a higher level of spending, there was an election last fall, a new republican house was elected, huge numbers of people who were elected said we have got to do something about spending, and so we had a fuss over what our spending levels shou be this year because we were operating not under authorization of appropriation bills but a continuing resolution, and that number was reduced. so the spending level for this year is not -- now is not the same as it was when the year began. so the current level of spending is a number we ought to be talking about when we say we're going to save money, corct? it shouldn't be the number that was higher but has been abandoned and been reduced. so that reduces the amount of legitimate claims and discretionary savings to less

than $800 billion or -- instead of there or so, and then he claims $100 billion in mandatory savings, but it's likely that those from our staff looking at them, that it would amount to no more than $60 billion. so the bottom line is tt we have looked at this a lot of different ways. i believe the numbers that i am going to repeat to you today will be sustained in any competitive argument about it. i believe these are honest and true numbers. the bottom line is that the total real savings that's proposed by the reid plan is not not $2.7 trillion but but $1 trillion. and if you do $1 trillion in savings and you raise the debt limit by $1 trillion, then that would extend to six, eight

months or so into early next year, which is, i suggest, where we ought to be because this amount of savings, $1 trillion, is nowhere near what we need to do to get off the debt course we're on. as senator corker indicated, most of the financial experts tell us we need at least least $4 trillion in savings, not $1 trillion. and so if we're just going to t one so we can vote in this crisis period to raise the debt limit before august 2 so the checks and everybody can be paid and the government can operate, operate, -- and i hope we can do that. we need to do that. but if all we're going to get is is $1 trillion, this is just an interim step. this is not a real fix at all, but it's an interim step, and if so, we need to be right back on

this issue soon, and that gives us an opportunity to do so early next year or late this year. because we have not solved the problem. $1 trillion is not enough. $4 trillion is not enough. depending on how you calculate the debt that's been projected to accrue over the next ten years, it's somewhere between between $9 trillion and $13 trillion. so $1 trillion is not going to do anything to change the disastrous debt course we are on. now, by the way, the president -- i just want to say this because he was pretty tough last night, blaming republicans for all kinds of problems. let me just say, the republican

house passed and i voted for in the senate a budget for ten years that changes the debt course of this republic. it puts us on a sound financial path. it reduced spending by as much as $6 trillion, $5 trillion over ten years. it even reduced taxes that create more economic growth and make us more competitive in the world marketplace. it was a thoughtful, long-term, serious budget that would do real positive things for america. the senate has not passed a budget, not had one marked up in the budget committee. the leadership here in the senate refused to allow it to happen. senator reid said it would be foolish to pass a budget. we have gone now over two years without a budget. it's unthinkable in the debt

course that we are on how disastrous it is, how unsustainable it is, how unlike anything that's ever happened in our history have this kind of debt path and we don't have a budget. so the president said, you know, a few weeks ago i have got a plan that cuts $3 trillion. well, is it like senator reid's reid's $2.7 trillion plan? it was never made public. it was never spelled out. yet he had a $3 trillion plan that cut spending, let's see it. maybe we can extend the debt limit more if he's going to cut cut $3 trillion in honest numbers. so if he has those numbers as he said he has in between attacking republicans for causing all the problems, let's see it. maybe that would be a basis for something. but i suspect it's no more

accurate than this plan because when the president proposed his budget, as the law required him to do early in the year, he said my budget calls on us as americans to live within our means ando not increase the debt. when, according to the coressional budget office, the lowest single budget deficit that would occur on his ten-year budget would be $750 billion. nowhere close to a balanced budget. and in the outer years, that deficit would be going up. so i would jus challenge the president if he has got a a $3 trillion plan, let's see it. now, the kindf -- some people say we need to have this long a

period of time, we can afford to have a short period of time. this is somehow a wrong thi to do and so forth, and i just would want to point out to my colleagues that it's not unusual at all. a $2.7 trillion increase in the debt, if that were to occur, would be very high. it would be a 19% increase in the current debt limit. putting the debt limit 50% higher than when president obama took office. it would be the largest debt incrse in histo, the fourth debt limit increase during president obama's tenure in office, the fourth time it's been raised. so this is not unusual. so i warn from the beginning that if we skirted the leslative process in favor of closed door white house meetings

and so forth, we would find ourselves in the 11th hour with gimmick-filled legislation being rushed through a panic-driven senate. this is not responsible governance from our leadership here in the senate. as i feared and as i've just descbed, the majority leader's bill does not achieve close to the promised savings that he says it would. far from the $2.7 trillion in cuts claimed, the true spending cuts in the proposal are closer to $1 trillion over ten years, less than half of what was advertised, while he's asking for a nearly $3 trillion increase in the debt limit. spending cuts next year would be only $3 billion less than the enacted amount for 2011. this falls short of the idea that a dollar in cuts should accompany a dollar in debt limit

increase. senator reid's proposal is structured in a way that is clearly designed to further the -- further degrade and undermine the budgetary process of the united states senate and it allows the majority not to have to come forrd and produce a budget plan. so given the late hour, rather than rush through a poorly vetted piece of legislation to provide the president the largest debt ceilingncrease in history, we should pursue a more responsible approach, a short-term extension with real cuts through the immediate time period the extension covers, not ten years down the road, then using the extra time that we have congress should pursue a binding framework like the cut, cap and balance plan to bring these gimmicks to an end and to alter our debt course.

we should try the one thing we've refused to do from the beginning: open hearings, regular order, and real legislative process and public participation. madam president, i thank the >> visit charleston this weekend. it is on the secession from the union. historian douglas from the annual care of line a date. there of the weekend, discover more with information on the civil war m plantation life. this weekend on c-span2 and

three. >> party leaders continue moving ahead today with their plans on debt and deficit reduction. in a few moments, they go overs over speaker john boehner's plan. more how they're working on their respective plans. >> a couple of live events to tell you about tomorrow on our companion network. executives testify about the effect of the ongoing debate on debt and deficit reduction and a possible federal defaults. at 3:00 p.m. eastern, a subcommittee focuses on permitpreventing violent extrem.

they suggest they have a key role to play. >> the route july, c-span radio has been forcing oral arguments on 14th amendment equal protection cases. >> any time the legislature is thinking about using were drawing boundaries for the specific purposes of showing a particular race will be elected, it is in balance. >> listing to c-span radio. >> the house rules committee begins work on the debate. this is less than two hours.

>> this is the senate amendment that will allow consideration of 2011. the rules committee shares jurisdiction with this issue. i'm going to be talking a little bit about the proposal. i know that mr. van holland -- ok. let me begin with my colleagues in explaining the measure that is before us. we do not like the fact that we're here. ever the past several weeks and months there has been a lengthy discussion about the imperative of increasing the national debt. we know our democratic colleagues have called for and we have a floor vote on a clean

increase. it was an increase in a debt ceiling that would not have anything attached to it whatsoever. we felt strongly it was important for us to recognize that this was our opportunity to change the treachery -- trajectory we had been on. strongly that it is essential that we seize this opportunity recognizing that it is important to play our obligations. we want to seize this

opportunity to change the trajectory. what we have before us was filed last night. what we have the force is a bipartisan measure that was agreed to by the speaker of the house and the center majority leader. she negotiated the speaker gaynor. we are proceeding with consideration. no one is happy about this.

we believe the action we are going to take will go a long way to change the direction we have been on. i would like to take a few minutes to explain the provision that is before us. it is described as the budget control act with recombining components feared the conditions in the increase of the debt ceiling on the implementation of spending reductions larger than the debt ceiling. it requires consideration calls for a debate in both houses of congress. third, it establishes a joint select committee cast it

requires an up or down vote. it reduces depression-era spending by $1.20 trillion over 10 years. it requires that they pass both the house and the senate and be signed by the president before any increase actually occurs. once the initial cuts are agreed to, a temporary increase in the debt ceiling will be granted and allow congress to begin the congress -- process of the increase. they will consider a resolution to disapproval of the next increase. the president will veto it. they will have a sense of overriding. also in september, the joint select committee will begin its

work to identify another $1.60 trillion in. as we have all read. they will consist of a 12 minute -- 12 member panel. the senate majority leader and majority leader. they are by the four leaders. legislation provides standing committees to provide input on how to achieve those savings. this is like the alignment that was put into place a decade and a half ago. it requires the select committee product to produce this by november 23 of this year. there have to file it in the house and senate by december 2 of this year. after which it to be introduced

as a bill. the bill would be debatable for two hours and would be subject -- and would not be subject to amendments. it will have a clean up for down votes. it would likewise made a simple majority vote for passage. it requires action in both chambers by december 23. if action is not taken for the president does not sign the legislation, there will be no further increase in the debt ceiling. the rules before us will provide consideration of the budget control act allow with a few extra provisions that need to move ahead. we're going to do something that has not been done before. be doing isoing to

we are going to provide the minority the opportunity to see any major one day before it is debated on the house foloor. we have seen amendments given with one hour's notice. we will do some they that has not been done before. if you object, it will be interesting. we're going to provide the minority with an opportunity to have one day's notice on any measure we will consider. we will proceed with consideration of the allowance a special authority to this coming sunday. we will be in the role of the house in session. it of the necessary for our mmx passing.

i like to call. plighted call on the other witness. -- i would like to call on other witnesses. >> i have a point of inquiry. >> i heard you say this is a bipartisan bill between senator reid -- >> will the gentleman yield? i think my friend for yielding. there was an agreement based on the reports that have gone forward from speaker gainejohn

boehner air. i said there is a change in the position. >> you did not say that at all. we're glad to have cameras here. you said there was an agreement. if i might. let me say. he has confirmed that i said that. the one to say there was an agreement. i made it clear that it does not exist at this moment because of the meeting that took place with president obama. i did. he may have been out of the room. they heard me say it. if i did not say that, >> thank

you very much. >> senator reid will hold his boat dock until thursday to see what happens here. then his bill will be the only one left in town. i do not believe they have any idea that they're going toward a bipartisan bill. a want to make that perfectly clear. i will reiterate what i said to my opening statement. i will reiterate as mr. hastings has confirmed what i said in my opening statement. last weekend there was a bipartisan agreement that put this package together that we have before us. i said that change at the end of the weekend. i am simply reiterating.

>> this is the senate amendment. this is the agreed upon package that was put together by the speaker of the house of representatives. this is a senate amendment that we're considering. this is the senate bill we have before us. >> this is the agreed upon deal. the speaker of the house of representatives as we all have

seen because of all these things taking place has been working over the past days and weeks to put this agreement together. >> there is a substitute offered. i believe that there have to be offered by a member of the house. likes the rules committee has jurisdiction. we will be making a jurisdiction we proceed. >> do you mean the rules committee will be the sponsor? >> i will be managing this on the house floor. we will can see with it?

>> here is taking it up. >> am i correct? a house member must also measure in order for it to be taken of by the house. this has come forward. this is the reason i outline the provision of the agreement. last weekend i had the support. it did last weekend. >> i hear you. it is false to say there was an agreement. >> i am basing this on what the

speaker of the house of representatives has indicated between the senate majority leader in the house of representatives. we are where we are today. i would like to recognize mr. van holland and in a prepared statement he have will enter the record. statement.tyour >> thank you for the opportunity to testify on the amendment. i can understand having read this when no one wants to claim its. i urge the committee not to send this rule for the following reasons. this proposal would play russian

roulette with our economy every six months. we know what a dire situation we're in right now. we have heard by independent rating agencies that if we do not make sure that the united states pays its bills on time beginning april 5, that we will put the credit were the united states at risk. that will risk rising interest rates across the board. we all want to resolve the issue. why would we have a proposed solution that puts us in the same place? we do not have to choose. that is the fundamental flaw.

senator reid name was mentioned. i'm sure all of us are aware. he has a proposal that is on the table. it would achieve 2.7 trillion dollars in savings. it is not put us through this situation. that is my fundamental issue. is the role also going to

envision a proposed constitutional amendment? >> we're looking to extend the debate time so we will be able to consider a balanced budget amendment. >> this is the plan. to do that, after reconsider this measure on the floor. >> it would be not open to amendment. is that right? >> that is correct. members will have an opportunity. that is the only provision will make. >> thank you. i like to make a few points about that particular provision. we went over this in some detail before. i think it is for revisiting. this is no ordinary common

garden variety, ordinary mmm. what it does is manipulate the constitution. it plants the republican budget proposal into the constitution. why do i say that that there are two provisions. number one is the provision that says that you only need a majority vote to cut medicare, it to cut education, to cut social security. but you need a 2/3 vote to cut special interest tax breaks for the purpose of deficit reduction. it is undeniable that you're writing that buys into the constitution. i have no justification for why we would do that. why you not allow the american people to work there will in that way and put a constitutional obstruction that biases us in favor of cuts to

education and medicare and not special interest tax breaks. you want to put that in the constitution. the second provision is an 18 some expenditure cap. we should all understand the we have not met that expenditure caps is the time medicare was passed. this country decided it was worth providing some security to people in their old age. we have been higher. when you have expenditures of your level, you are insuring cuts to things like medicare and social security. that will drive that. you will want to plant that in the constitution of the united states. the irony is this. the last time we had a budget was during surplus

the clinton years. we had a budget surplus. we had a $10 trillion projected surplus. no deficit spending. did nothing. under this twisted version, that would have been unconstitutional. that budget would have been unconstitutional. it was at 19% expenditures. not 18% a. you want to plant a provision that would have made the last budget unconstitutional.

>> anything in this role that has not be done, we will guarantee the minority the right to see this under suspension of the rules one day before it is submitted. you're certainly welcome to comment on any budget member proposal. we have posted the balanced budget amendment on the site as today. if you of like to comment on it? >> maybe the sponsors of the can comment on this regarding spend money when the and i did states is undergoing military operations region when the united states is undergoing

military operations -- may be the sponsors of the amendments can comment on this regarding when the united states is undergoing military operations. >> if i might. i'm talking about the agreement that was put together. we are talking about this rule that will allow for the extension of debate time. >> you are testifying on your view of the measure that we have. >> and try to figure out what

measure we have. >> i outlined the budget control act. the only thing in this role is that it allows for the possibility of consideration of an amendment later this week. we are extending the debate time so the majority will have an opportunity to consider an item that is beyond the purview of this role. it is under suspension of the rule. >> we have no idea what changes to the constitution the united states congress is expecting. >> that clearly will be submitted to the record. >> with the gentleman like me to yield index lives i will be happy. >> is this the one that was printed on the web site a?

>> people have, one day before debating this come up have made a bill. >> this is not just an ordinary bill. i would ask. i do not know the answer. whether the constitution have been taken up in the past under

suspension of the rules. >> there have been a number of times that day have had them urging that there have been votes handled. i cannot say exactly which occasions will have them out. as we know, there are a number of proposals that are out there. we will have the opportunity to see those. >> i will just end based on what appears to be the website. i do have some concerns about changing the constitution in a way that fundamentally alters the war powers